Can the DVX audio be improved if the camera is recording the sound?

MattinSTL

MattinSTL

Sound Modulator
I don't know if that title is a good one or not, but if you're reading this then it's mission accomplished.

I've been in on a friendly debate several times with people on each of the forums I belong to and the gist of the debate is that I don't think the DVX audio can be improved much... Many people have laughed me off as an inexperienced amature and some others, who have considerable experience and top-end gear have (more or less) agreed with my assessment.

For anybody who knows me around here, I speak from the position that if you own a DVX you can make great strides to improve your location sound recording SIMPLY by getting a good mic, the proper support gear, and then using that mic properly... which mostly means mic placement.

Now a professional sound guy is NOT going to have a DVX in his bag and run sound directly into the camera... even though I often do. I treat my DVX like a camera and I also treat it like a digital recorder. Sometimes I don't even take my camera out of the bag! I'll carry my Portabrace like it's a field recorder package and just let the cam sit in there getting sound. For a PRO... this would be stupid and unacceptable... but for "the rest of us" just how much difference does it make?

I will never say the DVX audio is PERFECT... but unless you are using a seperate recording system all together what do you think you lose via the DVX mic-pres and internal systems when you plug a mic directly in? Let's suppose you were using a mixer with a 120+ db SN and ultra-low THD and you fed the camera via LINE in rather then through the mic-pres... could you hear the difference?

I don't care which way this goes... but within a week we are going to find out. I ordered a Sound Devices pre today and I can't wait to see what the result of this experiment is.

For as much as I love the DVX audio I'd be even happier if it could GET much better...

So what's your guess? Do you think you'll be able to hear the difference between running a simple setup of mic/cam versus mic/mixer/line-in?

For the record, this isn't about the validity and professional qualities added to a shoot when a sound guy and professional mixer is brought in... hopefully we all know the value in that... or even in the options that a mixer alone brings...

This is about the absolute quality of the final recorded product under fixed conditions... in cold, scientific analysis.
 
Bypassing the DVX's internal microphone preamplifier and using an external pre with a better mic will yield much improved results. I do this all the time and it easily equals the performance of many of the standalone field recorders used in sound for film recording.

The presence of an external monitor tap (from the external pre/mixer) will be a welcome addition for your boom op / sound man. It will help them to do a better job and the results will more than justify the effort.
 
To answer your question "Can the DVX audio be improved if the camera is recording the sound?"

Yes, but definetly not recommended!
 
I don't own the DVX, nor do I know the quality of its pres so take this with a boulder of salt, but...

Assuming that the DVX has pres that are as good as those found on the XL2, I think I would be inclined to worry more about the resolution that the camera records at than the internal preamp. This also depends of course on the amount of post work you want to do to your audio, but still, better resolution at the time of capture is hard to beat (just as with imaging).

Matt
 
The DVX is supposed to have way, way better mic-pres, as well as the rest of the audio circuitry... then anything else even remotely close to it's price-range... meaning anything less then $6K.

The thing I want to determine is if you actually gain anything with easily audible results... by using an external gain device and running the mic line-in. (bypassing the DVX mic-pre)

I understand the value and benefit of a mixer and remote headphone monitoring, etc... I just want to figure out if you can easily hear any difference in the end result. (independent of the CONTROL benefits that a mixer brings)

Sorry I'm repeating myself, but I want to be sure my intent here is clear.

Personally I don't think you're gonna' be able to tell which clip is the mic ran straight in and which one uses the excellent mic-pre gain of the Sound Devices unit. That's my wager.

The only reason I'm even buying this SD piece is for my wireless boom op... it just happens that it'll also answer a question that's been bugging me for a while.
 
MattinSTL said:
The DVX is supposed to have way, way better mic-pres, as well as the rest of the audio circuitry... then anything else even remotely close to it's price-range... meaning anything less then $6K.
Click to expand...

This statement was made, and apparently was true, prior to the advent of the XL2. I would not be so sure if that is still the same case. The mic pres on the XL2 are EXCEPTIONALLY clean and the camera records audio (one mic) at a higher resolution.

Matt
 
Matt... if that's the case then it's the case. I'm not familiar with the XL2 other then what I've read on the Canon site and it looks like they have addressed audio needs very well.

I just had a hard time interpretting what you meant in your first reply... regarding resolution, etc.

If your audio is even cleaner then the DVX then you should be STUNNED with the sound you're getting on location.

My whole point in this thread is prove or disprove the notion that the DVX audio can be improved while the cam is used to capture sound. I've been on several shoots where we had a Marantz 670 and everyone agreed that there was no advantage to using it while the DVX was shooting. I know that the 670 isn't that great... but a lot of people rely on 'em.

So what did you mean to convey in your first reply? You are getting GREAT sound with just a mic and your XL2 right?

I don't think 24/96 is a necessity, but I'd be glad to have it. Did you mean that 16/48 isn't good enough?

BTW... check out Bluespider's avatar and banner... I laugh my ass off at that everytime I see it. Was that taken in a pot patch? I've never met anybody that happy.
 
My point is not, the XL2 is great, blah on you....

My point in the original post was, the XL2 has very good pres for a camcorder and every thing I've heard is that the DVX also has very good pres for a camcorder. Assuming that those in the DVX are AT LEAST as good as what's in the XL2 (which I am) then I think if I was looking to improve my audio, I would be looking at another capture device. NOT because of the pres (although you can certainly do better than those in either the XL2 or the DVX) but because of the recorded resolution. Both the XL2 and the DVX can record audio at 16bit The following information that was previously posted is incorrect, I apologize for the error. Both the DVX and the XL2 record at 16/48 I would of course prefer if they recorded 24/48 (actually I would prefer a minimum of 32bit floating point/96khz, but I'm greedy). The sample rate increase between the DVX and the XL2 will give slightly better audio resolution but not much. However, moving from 16 to 24 bit would be a significant step. Would you hear the difference with the naked ear on unprocessed dialog if recorded cleanly? Probably not. But once you started applying filters and eqing the audio and compressing it or what have you, then you will notice the difference. If you were recording a classical violinist, you would notice the difference right away. Also better resolution usually gives you a little better headroom.

Now back to the pres. Well, I love different mic pres. But I come from a music background where we use mic pres to color the sound. An old Universal Audio rig will sound one way, a new Avalon will sound another, a Neve board yet another way. Granted just one pre for any of these costs $2,000 and up.... How much better is a SD pre going to make captured DIALOG sound, assuming that everything else in the audio chain remains exactly the same? I will be very surprised if you hear much/any difference. I do think that a better pre than what is in the DVX when fed into a higher resolution recorder, will yeild better end (post processing) results.

Did I make any sense, or did I just ramble?? Damn, where's Dave Fisk when I need him....

Matt

And yes, I am stunned... :beer:
 
Ahh... thank you very much.

Yes this is what I'm assuming to be the case also... I was just told by some people that adding a mixer or better mic-pre and going line in would make a big difference in the sound I'm getting... and of course, I think it won't. You and I agree on that... but I don't think Dave will help you make THAT point (only because I don't think he agrees...).

Basically the only thing I want to prove or disprove is that there is an easily reached point of diminishing returns* with the DVX (and I'm sure, the XL2) and that point is probably right after purchasing a really good mic.

*again, control and monitoring benefits of a mixer notwithstanding.
 
One thought.... I have always been in a position where I could use optimum mic placement. Perhaps if I had to really rely on gain beyond what I would consider reasonable to do under normal circumstances, the SD pre would make a difference - it is probably cleaner at higher gain settings. So try to test for this and see what you get.

Matt
 
And I don't know if Dave would disagree... My question is, is the audio recording capability of either the DVX or the XL2 good enough to take advantage of the better pres offered in a Sound Devices Unit? My guess is Dave would say no and tell you to save your money unless you could route that SD pre/mixer into an SD digital audio recorder (or use a combo unit of sorts). And I would agree with that. But who knows maybe I'm dead wrong on this one, I don't claim expertise in this particular area...

Matt
 
One last thing, then I have to go nite, nite. I would like to see Dave or Wabbit get a hold of the uncompressed copies of the audio files and a/b then in a mixing studio. That environment will reveal things that we cant hear. It would be like me and you shooting footage with are cams and talking about how great they look, and then sending it to some guy who projects it onto a 60 foot screen without any uprezz.... It'll look like crap to him, and we'd be like, "but it looks great on my 9" radio shack special!!!!". So let's see what they hear as well.

Matt
 
I may have misunderstood Dave... but part of the reason I started this thread was his statement to the effect of audio being poor from a DVX due to "...both the crappy mic pres in the camera, the crappy a/d converters in the camera..." and rather then quote him in several posts which expound on this... I just figured I'd buy the SD and do my own experiment.

Everytime I post a link to something that I feel proves my point... he's ignored it or just written it off because the computer speakers at his work suck. When somebody goes on about the professional sound work they do and can't assess an online file due to equipment issues I tend not to put stock in their opinions on sound.

This particular issue 'aint rocket science... and the analogy of picture doesn't fit here because YOUR ears are the 60' screen you mentioned. If you put on a pair of 7506's and you hear great sound... then it's great sound. Period. Don't let somebody convince you that you aren't hearing what you're hearing.

Now on the other hand if somebody says, "that's not great sound... THIS is" and gives me something I can listen to and judge for myself then I'd be more thankful then anybody on here!

I just don't think there's too many people making 100 million dollar features with their DVX cams... and for what we ARE doing... including independent film... that the DVX (and XL2) is probably so capable in the sound department that if you're having trouble with sound quality that it's an issue of poor technique rather then the lack of a quality recorder.

I'm not saying I'm right... but don't just say I'm wrong either. Prove your argument for me... and the rest of the members. To dismiss what I think is a nearly perfect recording made with just mic/cam by saying you work on big budget productions and not even commenting on what you hear is a cop out... then to say your speakers suck so you can't comment is even worse.

This isn't the Viper Streamcorder forum... it's a forum for people with $5K and under cams (mostly). I don't care what a 100 million dollar movie does for sound... but if some other "regular guy" in here can smoke the audio I'm getting I don't want him to keep that info to himself either!

I'll gladly lose a race or an argument if I get the benefit of the winner's knowledge and experience afterward... just don't tell me there's no point in racing 'cause your car's too fast or your tires are flat... 'cause then I'll wonder what you're doing at the track.
 
MattC said:
however the DVX records 44.1 while the XL2 records a sample rate of 48khz
Click to expand...
WHAT??!?

Sorry, someone's been hitting the peyote here... the DVX is 48khz as well. In fact, I don't think there's ever been a DV-format camera that can actually record the 44.1khz standard (44.1 is part of the DV standard, but I think you can only ever get to it through firewire; I can't think of a camera that's ever used it for the live recording format).

The sample rate increase between the DVX and the XL2 will give slightly better audio resolution but not much.
Click to expand...
Nope. There is no sample rate increase. The only difference between the two is the question mark of whether the XL2 uses actual 48khz rate -- the XL1 had an irritating sync problem because it didn't use the precise rate. Presumably that's fixed in the XL2 though.
 
Sorry Barry, I was referencing posts here in this audio section that said the DVX recorded at 16/44.1khz. There was more than one, so I assumed it was correct. I did try looking at Panasonics site and was unable to find the info.
 
No problem -- but for clarity, let's make sure people understand that it's 48khz. The only camera I can think of that didn't offer 48khz audio was the original VX1000 and VX700 -- I think every camera since then has offered 48khz...
 
Not trying to spread falshoods, dude. If you read my posts, you'll see that I'm trying to stick up for the mighty DVX...
 
We're all friends here.

I just want to solve this and I enjoy intelligent debate with some meat on the bone.

This won't be the first time (or the last) that I put out my own money because somebody else gave me a notion... so if everyone is in agreement that the DVX audio can't be improved so long as the DVX is doing the sound recording then I don't even need to post a sound file.

I keep dangling the hook and I don't think anyone's gonna' bite on it.

I guess the next thing I'll have to do is rent a Deva and REALLY see what's what... There's a place in town with some nice high-end sh*t... so don't dare me... I'll do it.

I'm even willing to bet that with dialog (and ambience) that you can't pick the HHB Portadat from a DVX... and I can actually do this one.
 
MattinSTL said:
I may have misunderstood Dave... but part of the reason I started this thread was his statement to the effect of audio being poor from a DVX due to "...both the crappy mic pres in the camera, the crappy a/d converters in the camera..." and rather then quote him in several posts which expound on this... I just figured I'd buy the SD and do my own experiment.
Click to expand...

Well I would also agree with the A/D/D/A converters, but again for straight dialog on a low budget feature??? I don't think they'll kill you. But again, if you're recording Yo Yo Ma, get something else...

This particular issue 'aint rocket science... and the analogy of picture doesn't fit here because YOUR ears are the 60' screen you mentioned. If you put on a pair of 7506's and you hear great sound... then it's great sound. Period. Don't let somebody convince you that you aren't hearing what you're hearing.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. Audio played through very precise monitors at high volume in a properly tuned room can reveal problems with audio that I can't here in my bedroom, even with a good set of near field monitors. Maybe you have a good enough set-up to be able mix a feature for theatrical release in your place, but I don't.

I just don't think there's too many people making 100 million dollar features with their DVX cams... and for what we ARE doing... including independent film... that the DVX (and XL2) is probably so capable in the sound department that if you're having trouble with sound quality that it's an issue of poor technique rather then the lack of a quality recorder.
On this we mostly agree. I will say this, if you are going to project your feature in a theater (distribution) at volume and it has a robust soundtrack which will receive the benefit of a fair amount of post work. I would record to an external recorder with higher resolution, at least 24/96 and with better pres and A/D converters. If I were making a video/movie for the web or for DVDs, I would probably just record my dialog on the camera.

I'm not saying I'm right... but don't just say I'm wrong either. Prove your argument for me... and the rest of the members. To dismiss what I think is a nearly perfect recording made with just mic/cam by saying you work on big budget productions and not even commenting on what you hear is a cop out... then to say your speakers suck so you can't comment is even worse.
Click to expand...

I cant argue with you here...


Matt

[I really need to get to bed...]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top